To call the model "just statistics" is meaningless. To call it "just like a brain" is unsupported. There are better ways to debate this.
To call the model "just statistics" is meaningless. To call it "just like a brain" is unsupported. There are better ways to debate this.
So which mental model is superior when evaluated under the criterion of "ability to interact productively with the tool"? (a) It's just statistics / stringing together phrases from the internet or (b) it's more like a human brain with vastly superior general knowledge?
Personally, I would put money on (b) resulting in better interactions. This is probably something we could study empirically.
But ultimately I don't really care that much about the philosophical issues, my mental model of it (a more nuanced version of b) has enabled me to use it productively almost every day to do things that I couldn't do before.